In article <13p55t5otoid42d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "Steven L."
<sdlitvin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Anybody wrote:
> > In article <13p4up5p3dmsaec@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "Steven L."
> > <sdlitvin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> Jaxtraw wrote:
> >>> Anybody wrote:
> >>>> In article <im84p39v3sm54ef28dlq5q1q2u55nfs7em@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Brian
Thorn
> >>>> <bthorn64@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:10:54 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> There's not such thing as an "orbit over the San Francisco Navy
> >>>>>>> Yards". There are geostationary orbits, but they only "hover"
> >>>>>>> (22,300 miles up) over a point on the equator. San Francisco is
> >>>>>>> not on the equator.
> >>>>>> Trek never used 'orbit' the way we do. Standard 'orbit' is way
> >>>>>> below geosync, which is why they're always spiralling in at the
> >>>>>> first loss of power. They consider 'hovering under power' to be
> >>>>>> 'orbit'
> >>>>> I've always assumed "standard orbit" to be some typical value from
> >>>>> the center of the planet along the planet's equator, like
"circular
> >>>>> orbit 150% of the planet's diameter at 0 degrees inclination" or
> >>>>> something like that. It was never specified, but that's why the
> >>>>> Enterprise always seems to be the same size relative to the planet
> >>>>> it's orbiting in those visuals.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The first time they "spiralled out of orbit" was in "Naked Time"
> >>>>> because Psi 2000 was contracting beneath them and they had to keep
> >>>>> lowering their orbit, and the planet's gravity field was all wonky
> >>>>> (so the spiralling down makes sense within that context and
> >>>>> shouldn't be considered a typical danger to being in orbit.) The
> >>>>> second time was in "Court Martial", with no
> >>>>> planet-breakup-wonky-gravity explanation, and that was just lazy
> >>>>> writing. I don't remember any others. ("The Apple" was caused by
> >>>>> external forces, not gravity or lack of engines.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not often, but in episodes like "Mirror, Mirror", their orbits
worked
> >>>>> the ways ours do in the real world. Targets that the ISS
Enterprise
> >>>>> was supposed to strike kept going out of range while Good Kirk
tried
> >>>>> to think of a way to get out of doing it. "Galileo 7" deorbited
and
> >>>>> burned up because it was in a very low orbit in the first place.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also, none of the visuals in any way suggested that the Enterprise
> >>>>> was "hovering under power". They were always happily circling the
> >>>>> planet of the week.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course, if you have the power to hover anywhere you want above
a
> >>>>> planet, then that could also explain how the Enterprise was built
on
> >>>>> terra firma. They just used that magic propulsion system to fly up
> >>>>> into space once construction was finished.
> >>>> The Star Trek Encyclopedia doesn't give much enlightenment from the
> >>>> Star Trek universe's point of view, but does give a little behind
the
> >>>> scenes information:
> >>>>
> >>>> Standard Orbit
> >>>> --------------
> >>>> Normal orbit assumed by a Federation starship above
> >>>> a Class-M planet.
> >>>>
> >>>> Editors Note: The term "standard orbit" was used as
> >>>> an ingenious means of allowing the captain to give
> >>>> a technical-sounding command when the ship entered
> >>>> orbit, without having to bore the viewer with
> >>>> tedious details of orbital inclination, apogee,
> >>>> perigee, and orbital period. It was at one point
> >>>> thought that standard orbit would be synchronous,
> >>>> allowing the ship to remain stationary over a
> >>>> single point on the planet's surface, but a
> >>>> visual-effects shot of the ship, motionless over
> >>>> the plaent, would not have been dynamic, thereby
> >>>> lacking dramatic value. Moving the ship was,
> >>>> therefore, a conscious decision by the show's
> >>>> producers. Even when the ship was required to
> >>>> "hover", some slight movement was shown so that
> >>>> the image wouldn't be static.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Star Trek Encyclopedia
> >>>> Michael & Denise Okuda
> >>>>
> >>>> I would have thought all those "tedious details" would have been
the
> >>>> navigation / pilot's problem anyway, not the captain's. The captain
> >>>> simply needs to say "enter orbit" and the crew take care of the
> >>>> details by assuming a "standard" distance unless told otherwise.
> >>> The thing's hopelessly overmanned anyway. There's no way the
navigator's
> >>> actually doing anything useful. Boop boop boop "course plotted". I
don't
> >>> think that right hand console's actually connected to anything.
> >> Occasionally we saw the navigator plotting a more complex course:
> >>
> >> Kirk telling Bailey to plot a spiral course away from the cube in
> >> "Corbomite Maneuver"
> >>
> >> Kirk ordering a conic section flight path to end up parallel to V'ger
> >>
> >> It's just that for dramatic purposes, the complexity of the courses
that
> >> the navigator plots were not explained most of the rest of the time.
> >> Roddenberry had stipulated that stuff should be minimized to maintain
a
> >> fast pace to the episode.
> >
> > Technically they don't need any of them. The computer could fly the
> > Enterprise all by itself (despite the obvious episode where the
> > computer was trying to be the captain), except perhaps in highly
> > complex situations, eg. combat where more unpredictability would be
> > better.
>
> Well, like we've already been discussing, Star Trek vastly
> underestimated what automation would be capable of in the future. Even
> 1966-era Boeing 707 airliners had autopilots. Today's autopilots, just
> 40 years later, can handle complex courses with multiple waypoints, and
> can even land the plane by themselves. The autopilots in today's
> supertankers can steer the ship by themselves similarly.
<snip>
I read a couple of weeks ago that Ford (or maybe it was GM) are
planning to have self-driving cars on the market by something like
2015. Hopefully Microsloth aren't involved in anyway ... 'blue screen
of death' could easily have a literal meaning!
|
